Haryana

Sonipat

CC/9/2016

Shri Pal Bhardwaj S/o Khem Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ravinder Bhardwaj

18 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.09 of 2016                                              Instituted on:05.01.2016

                                Date of order:18.01.2017

 

Shri Pal Bhardwaj son of Khem Chand, resident of near RK School, Ram Nagar, Gohana, distt. Sonepat.

…Complainant.         

Versus

 

1.Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd., Magma House 24 Park Street, Kolkata-16 through its Director.

2.Virender Prashar, Branch Manager, Magma HDI Gen.Ins. Co. Ltd., 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd Floor, SCO no.13, Sector 3, HSIIDC Industrial Estate, Karnal.

3.Ajender Sharma, Surveyor, HDI General Insurance Co. ,resident of near Bijli Board office, Gali no.2, Matka Wali Gali, Ram Nagar, Gohana, distt. Sonepat.

4.Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., Gr. Flr. Rajmahal Building, Bawa Tarana Road, Opp. Bank of Baroda, near Gandhi Chowk, Sonepat through its Branch Manager.

                                                     …Respondents.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Ravinder Bhardwaj Advocate for complainant.

           Sh. HC Jain,  Advocate for respondent no.1 and 2.

           Sh.Sandeep Kumar, Adv. for respondent no.3.

           Respondent no.4 ex-parte.

          

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President.

Prabha Wati-Member.

J.L. Gupta-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging himself to be the registered owner of Car no.HR11E/9240 and the same was insured with respondent no.1 and 2 for the period w.e.f. 19.11.2014 to 18.11.2015 and unfortunately the said car met with an accident on 15.1.2015. The complainant intimated the insurance company about the accident. The damaged vehicle was inspected by the respondent no.3 and after inspection, it was got placed in authorized workshop M/s Jagmohan Motors. The complainant was told that his vehicle was treated as total loss. The complainant fulfilled all the formalities as per requirement.  Now the complainant has come to know that the respondent no.2 and 3 in collusion with each other have sold away the vehicle of the complainant to some other third party without the consent and knowledge of the complainant without settling his claim.   A letter dated 9.5.2015 was sent to the complainant leveling objection that the insured vehicle was Ritz VDI whereas the vehicle produced is Ritz LDI.  The complainant has produced the vehicle Ritz VDI which is mentioned in the RC. The model, chasis number and engine number of the vehicle can be verified.   The said vehicle was financed with respondent no.4.  The respondent no.1 to 3 are wrongly and illegally avoiding the payment of the sum assured and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1 to 3. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondent no.1 & 2 and 3 appeared and they filed their separate written statement, whereas respondent no.4 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 8.7.2016.

          The respondent no.1 and 2 in their joint written statement has submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.  The complainant has obtained the insurance policy for his vehicle form the respondent no.1 and 2 by misrepresenting the facts. The complainant himself is liable for the breach of good faith.  The complainant has produced Ritz LDI model vehicle at the time of pre-inspection, whereas ass per RC of the Car no.HR11E/9240 its model is Ritz VDI which was never insured with the respondents no.1 and 2. The complainant got issued the insurance policy of this car under misrepresentation of facts with regard to its model. After receiving information regarding the accident, the respondent on 22.1.2015 deputed Pankaj Rohila, surveyor and loss assessor to inspect the damaged vehicle and to report about the cause, nature and extent of loss/damage subject to terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The said surveyor carefully inspected the accidental/damaged vehicle and has submitted his report dated 22.4.2015 and as per this report, total loss of the vehicle without RC was assessed to the tune of Rs.4,69,000/- after deducting the amount towards policy excess clause and wreck value from the IDV of the vehicle whereas with RC total loss was assessed to the tune of Rs.3,29,000/- after deducting the amount towards policy excess clause and wreck value from the negotiated IDV of the vehicle.   After receiving the surveyor report dated 22.4.2015 it came into the light that the vehicle shown in the damaged condition was totally different form the vehicle produced for pre-inspection which shows that the loss was manipulated to take benefits from the insurance company. The respondents no.1 and 2 have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 4.6.2015.  There was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.1 and 2 and the complainant is not entitled for any relief and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

          The respondent no.3 in its written statement has submitted that the respondent no.3 never met with the complainant.  The respondent no.3 has not sold the vehicle of the complainant in collusion with the respondent no.2.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.3 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

          Ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant is the registered owner of Car no.HR11E/9240 and the same was insured with respondent no.1 and 2 for the period w.e.f. 19.11.2014 to 18.112015 and unfortunately the said car met with an accident on 15.1.2015. The complainant intimated the insurance company about the accident. The damaged vehicle was inspected by the respondent no.3 and after inspection, it was got placed in authorized workshop M/s Jagmohan Motors. The complainant was told that his vehicle was treated as total loss. The complainant fulfilled all the formalities as per requirement.  Now the complainant has come to know that the respondent no.2 and 3 in collusion with each other have sold away the vehicle of the complainant to some other third party without the consent and knowledge of the complainant without settling his claim.   A letter dated 9.5.2015 was sent to the complainant leveling objection that the insured vehicle was Ritz VDI whereas the vehicle produced is Ritz LDI.  The complainant has produced the vehicle Ritz VDI which is mentioned in the RC. The model, chasis number and engine number of the vehicle can be verified.   The said vehicle was financed with respondent no.4.  The respondent no.1 to 3 are wrongly and illegally avoiding the payment of the sum assured and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1 to 3.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 and 2 has submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.  The complainant has obtained the insurance policy for his vehicle form the respondent no.1 and 2 by misrepresenting the facts. The complainant himself is liable for the breach of good faith.  The complainant has produced Ritz LDI model vehicle at the time of pre-inspection, whereas ass per RC of the Car no.HR11E/9240 its model is Ritz VDI which was never insured with the respondents no.1 and 2. The complainant got issued the insurance policy of this car under misrepresentation of facts with regard to its model. After receiving information regarding the accident, the respondent on 22.1.2015 deputed Pankaj Rohila, surveyor and loss assessor to inspect the damaged vehicle and to report about the cause, nature and extent of loss/damage subject to terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The said surveyor carefully inspected the accidental/damaged vehicle and has submitted his report dated 22.4.2015 and as per this report, total loss of the vehicle without RC was assessed to the tune of Rs.4,69,000/- after deducting the amount towards policy excess clause and wreck value from the IDV of the vehicle whereas with RC total loss was assessed to the tune of Rs.3,29,000/- after deducting the amount towards policy excess clause and wreck value from the negotiated IDV of the vehicle.   After receiving the surveyor report dated 22.4.2015 it came into the light that the vehicle shown in the damaged condition was totally different form the vehicle produced for pre-inspection which shows that the loss was manipulated to take benefits from the insurance company. The respondents no.1 and 2 have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 4.6.2015.  There was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.1 and 2 and the complainant is not entitled for any relief.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.3 has submitted that the respondent no.3 never met with the complainant.  The respondent no.3 has not sold the vehicle of the complainant in collusion with the respondent no.2.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.3.

          We have perused the surveyor report of Pankaj Rohila Surveyor & Loss Assessor dated 22.4.2015 very carefully.  The detail of assessment in net of salvage (with RC) made by the surveyor is mentioned below:-

IDV of the vehicle	Rs.5,70,000/-
Negotiated IDV	Rs.5,20,000/-
Less policy excess	Rs.1,000/-
Less Wreck Value	Rs.1,90,000/- (salvage retained by the insured/sold to buyer
Loss on NOS	Rs.3,29,000/-.

 

In our view, the complainant is entitled to Rs.3,29,000/- as assessed by the surveyor because as per authoritative decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission and State Commissions, the surveyor is the best person to assess the loss and his report cannot be brushed aside.  Thus, taking into consideration the report of the surveyor, we hereby direct the respondent no.1 and 2 to make the payment of Rs.3,29,000/- to the complainant within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the above said order shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till its realization.

          We have also perused the document Annexure D i.e. copy of the RC and Annexure E i.e. insurance certificate of the vehicle in question and both these documents shows that there is HPA in between the complainant and respondent no.4 Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.  The complainant has not placed any record regarding clearance of the finance liability and has not produced no objection certificate or no dues certificate issued by Mahindra and Mahindra in favour of the complainant. Accordingly, the respondent no.1 and 2 are hereby directed to first make the payment to the respondent no.4.  Similarly, the respondent no.4 is hereby directed that if any excess amount is received by them, the respondent no.4 shall return the same to the complainant after clearance of the financed liability in respect of the vehicle in question.

           With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed partly.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)(J.L.Gupta)                   (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF  Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:18.01.2017.